1867.] 349 [Chase. 



While these considerations would perhaps satisfy an unprejudiced 

 mind that there are still etymological treasures in the mine which 

 has been worked for so many ages, and that, in the radical compar- 

 ison of apparently unconnected languages, there may be ample data 

 for a calculus of probabilities, they may help to remind the most 

 prudent and profound philologists, that the detection of errors in any 

 popular method is apt to lead to an undue reaction, and to render 

 useless, for awhile, an instrument, which, under proper direction, 

 would prove a most valuable auxiliary. Accidental resemblances 

 undoubtedly exist, and they are sometimes strangely deceptive, but 

 they are by no means so numerous as is often supposed. The sooner 

 this fact is generally admitted, the sooner may we hope for a satis- 

 factory explanation of the many curious homophones which have out- 

 lived all traces of similarity in grammatical inflections, and, after such 

 explanation, even a linguistic solution of the vexed question of human 

 unity may cease to be regarded as an impossibility. 



It is with great diffidence that I have felt compelled thus to dis- 

 sent from the cautious conclusions of a student whose varied acquire- 

 ments and diligent research have lent so much honor to American 

 science. If the issue were merely philological, I should defer, with- 

 out hesitation, to an authority for which I entertain so great respect ; 

 but mathematical inferences should be tested only by mathematical 

 criteria, and, unless it can be shown that I have inadvertently taken 

 some step which invalidates my conclusions, I must continue to be- 

 lieve that the comparison of well-established radicals constitutes a 

 legitimate branch of linguistic science. When writing the previous 

 articles, I could imagine no better crucial test than that of the Cher- 

 okee alphabet,* and the result of the test accorded so precisely with 

 my theory that my views seen)ed, as they still seem to me, conclusive. 

 While agreeing, therefore, on most points, with the reviewer, I think 

 that the labors of well qualified lexicographers maybe made auxiliary 

 to those of well qualified collators, and that ends may thus be attained 

 by combined scholarship, which would be, confessedly, beyond the 

 reach of any single individual. 



Mr. Thomas P. James laid before the Society a manu- 

 script journal of a botanical excursion in the northeastern 

 parts of Pennsylvania, and in the State of New York, in the 

 year 1807, found among some of the papers of the late Dr. 



* Loc. cit., p. 29. 

 VOL. X. — 2w 



